Lunchtime Ramblings: Club v Region
By Prof
January 16 2007
The "ludicrous report" which isn't at all true and is just someone making mischief (honest guv') about the RFU wanting to kill off club rugby in England has led to quite a bit of debate over the last day or so. So here's my pennyworth...
The current top 10 National Sides (IRB rankings):
1 New Zealand
Regional Teams
RWC: Won in 1987 - 20 years ago
IRB Ranking Highest/Lowest (2003-7): 1/3
2 France
Clubs
Highest Ranked Team in Europe: 3 - Claremont-Auvergne
RWC: Losing Finalists 1987 & 1999
IRB Ranking Highest/Lowest (2003-7): 2/5
3 Australia
Regional Teams
RWC: Won in 1991 & 1999 - 16 & 8 years ago
IRB Ranking Highest/Lowest (2003-7): 2/5
4 South Africa
Regional Teams
Won RWC: 1995 - 12 years ago
IRB Ranking Highest/Lowest (2003-7): 2/6
5 Ireland
Regional Teams
Highest Ranked Team in Europe: 2 Munster
RWC: Quarter Finals 2003
IRB Ranking Highest/Lowest (2003-7): 3/7
6 Argentina
Clubs
RWC: Quarter Finals 1999
IRB Ranking Highest/Lowest (2003-7): 6/9
7 England
Clubs
Highest Ranked Team in Europe: 1 Leicester
RWC: Won in 2003 - 4 years ago
IRB Ranking Highest/Lowest (2003-7): 1/7
8 Wales
Regional Teams
Highest Ranked Team in Europe: 9 Llanelli Scarlets
RWC: Quarter Finals 2003
IRB Ranking Highest/Lowest (2003-7): 5/9
9 Scotland
Regional Teams
Highest Ranked Team in Europe: 25 Edinburgh Rugby
RWC: Quarter Finals 1999
IRB Ranking Highest/Lowest (2003-7): 7/10
10 Samoa
Clubs
RWC: Quarter Finals 1995
IRB Ranking Highest/Lowest (2003-7): 9/12
Does this just show that the northern hemisphere countries with clubs rather than regions do better in the long run - after all even though Ireland, Wales and Scotland have regions they haven't won any world cups.
Ireland have done well in the last couple of years but is that down to their exceptional crop of players or their regional set up? They were second to France in last season's 6N and 3rd the season before.
Wales haven't really done anything and their best region is 9th in Europe.
Of the top ten ranked teams in Europe 7 of them are clubs rather than regions. Wales won the 6N with a grand slam in 2005 but were 5th last year. One Welsh region has already gone to the wall and two others are in difficulty.
Scotland's best region is 25th in Europe (3 places below us), their other two regions are 29th and 41st out of 46! They finished 3rd in the 6N last season and 5th the season before. Borders were close to financial collapse just a few months ago.
Hardly anyone goest to watch rugby in Scotland at any level.
Welsh club rugby has tiny crowds, their regional sides are far better supported
In Ireland Munster may get big crowds in the HC but they get tiny crowds in the Magners League
So does the club/regional set up really have such an effect on the national side?
With European law isn't it almost impossible to stipulate how many English players can play in an English club or regional team?
Are we saying that the regionalisation of rugby in Scotland and Wales is producing better rugby players and teams than a country like France?
Isn't the success of a club/regional side more to do with the amount of money that they receive - Connacht isn't exactly doing as well as Munster, Leinster or Ulster?
Is the problem with the English national side more to do with the fact that a lot of the players in the RWC 2003 were right at the end of their carreers and probably carried on playing for an extra year or so because of the RWC and when they left en masse it left a gaping hole in the national side which meant we had to pick a very inexperienced side. So now we have to pick some youngsters (great) alongside some old but experienced players (eg Catt etc) rather than having a whole set of experienced players edging towards the end of their international careers.
I think blaming the national set up is just an excuse, it could just be that we don't have a big crop of great players at the moment, the good players we do have really aren't that experienced and that isn't something you can put right overnight. I also think that we really don't have true world class quality in the scrum half position. I think Danny Care is the future England 9 but he hasn't been selected so we have a number of good club players there instead.
So, what's the answer?
Building for RWC 2011 is probably wisest idea, this year's competition isn't likely to offer many good moments for England although I do expect us to get to the quarter finals.
Other than that I can't really come up with anything at all, I'm not sure if the consultants who are on huge money will come up with anything else either (except possibly another leaked document to try to test the water).
I'm pretty certain that a knee jerk reaction will be bad for everyone, after all the attendances at GP and internationals has been higher than ever before and many of those rugby fans would put club before country every time.
However, I can see a point in the future when there will be a number of 'franchises' in the future and they will be associated with current ND1 and ND2 clubs who would act as feeder clubs - there are already a number of associations between GP and ND1 clubs and this can only be a good thing to continue.
An end to, or reworking of, the wage cap seems very likely too in the very near future, so we will see clubs with bigger squads and more strength in depth.
There may be some things to learn from Rugby League where the wage cap is related to a club's turnover, and also the way that they have to have a limit on the number of players paid over a certain amount (the 20/20 salary cap rule), this means that a lot of young players get the chance to play at the top level. This may not work in the same way in RU with the different wage ranges for different positions (have you ever seen a poorly paid 3, 9 or 10 who are any good?), but it's something to consider.
Oh well, that's my lunch time over, enough of my ramblings, I'd better get back to real work.